United Kingdom Archives - EURO LIT INSIGHTS

The Potentially Damaging Effects of Non-Compliance with PD57AC

by Harry Denlegh-Maxwell and Daisy Daynes | Oct 22, 2024 | Investment, Court Judgment, Regulatory/Compliance, United Kingdom

On 14 August 2024, in the case of Timothy Fulstow and Robert Woods v Jeremy Francis [2024] EWHC 2122 (ChD) (Fulstow), the High Court dismissed a high value investment claim, partly because the claimants’ witness statements were in clear contravention of Practice Direction 57AC (PD 57AC).

This case acts as a cautionary tale for legal representatives and their clients. It not only highlights the importance of complying with the requirements of PD 57AC when preparing witness statements, but also draws attention to the personal, albeit professional, obligations of lawyers when signing declarations of compliance with PD 57AC.

In his judgment, Deputy High Court Judge David Stone made a point of criticising the solicitor representing the claimants for submitting a ‘false’ declaration that the witness statements were compliant with PD 57AC, when they were clearly not. He went as far as questioning the suitability of the representative, suggesting that “any solicitor properly practising in this court ought to have known [that the witness statements did not comply with PD 57AC]”.

The Key Provisions of PD 57AC

PD57AC was introduced in 2021 to prevent the perceived “over-lawyering” of witness statements, and to address long-held concerns that witness statements were often too

Court of Appeal Rules in Favour of the FCA in Significant Redress Decision for all Regulated Firms

by Harry Denlegh-Maxwell, William Merry and Rebecca Geers | Oct 22, 2024 | Court Judgment, Regulatory/Compliance, Private Equity, United Kingdom

Introduction

In a landmark ruling, the Court of Appeal recently confirmed that the FCA can impose a redress requirement on an FCA-regulated firm under section 55L Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA) without needing to meet the pre-conditions for a statutory market-wide redress scheme under section 404F FSMA.

Background

BlueCrest Capital Management UK LLP (BlueCrest) was the subject of an FCA investigation in 2021. The conclusion of this investigation found that the hedge fund breached Principle 8 of the FCA’s Principles for Businesses by failing to properly mitigate conflicts of interests when acting as an investment manager. BlueCrest was accused of making decisions that ultimately benefited an internal fund, whose stakeholders included senior partners and key employees, to the detriment of an external fund with external investors. As recompense, the FCA ordered a £40,806,700 penalty against BlueCrest and required it to redress an estimated US$700 million to its investors under section 55L FSMA.

BlueCrest challenged this decision and took its case to the Upper Tribunal. BlueCrest argued that the FCA was not permitted to impose a redress on a single firm under section 55L FSMA without taking into account the four conditions under section 404F(7) FSMA, being loss, causation,

“Dominant motive…lies in the financial interests of its backers”: High Court Strikes Out a Representative Action under CPR 19.8 by Passengers in 116,000 Delayed or Cancelled Flights

by Jack Thorne and Briana Walley | Sep 12, 2024 | Court Judgment, Transportation & Logistics, United Kingdom

On 2 September 2024, the High Court struck out an application for a representative proceeding under CPR 19.8 that had been brought against certain airlines for cancelled and delayed flights: Smyth v British Airways Plc & Ors [2024] EWHC 2173 (KB). The Court considered that the “same interest” requirement under CPR 19.8 had not been met and that the claim was motivated by financial recovery for the litigation funder, and not the interests of the would-be class. The case highlights the importance of a well-defined class and a suitable representative claimant in order for representative proceedings to proceed.

Background

Ms Claire Smyth had booked a flight with British Airways (BA) from London to Nice. A week before she was due to depart, the flight was cancelled. Under Article 7(1) of the EU Regulation 261/2004 (retained post-Brexit), Ms Smyth had the right to claim compensation against BA (who manages a portal through which passengers may claim compensation). However, Ms Smyth chose not to use the portal and instead brought a representative proceeding on behalf of her fellow travellers – not just on her flight, but anyone who had booked flights with BA or easyJet scheduled to depart from, or arrive at,

All Aboard the Omnibus Claim Form

by Jack Thorne and Jonathan Robb | Sep 10, 2024 | Court Judgment, United Kingdom

In Adams and others v Ministry of Defence,[1] the High Court has recently followed the Court of Appeal judgment in Morris and others v Williams & Co Solicitors (a firm)[2], in confirming that multiple claimants can bring proceedings via a single Claim Form, provided that the test of convenience is satisfied.

The English Courts have shown intent in recent years on embracing group and class action litigation, not least in seeking to maintain a position as a pre-eminent litigation forum. Under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), there are a number of procedural routes that potential groups/classes can use to bring actions, subject to the specific circumstances of the cases at hand. These include, in particular:

Use of a single Claim Form for multiple claimants in accordance with CPR 19.1 and CPR 7.3 (also referred to as omnibus claims).
Multiple claims (with sufficient degrees of commonality) that are issued separately (or through an omnibus Claim Form), which are case managed together but proceed through lead or sample claimants.
Multiple separate claims that are case managed under a group litigation order in accordance with CPR 19.21-19.26.
A representative action pursuant to CPR 19.8 or 19.9, which is

Court of Appeal Interprets Released Claims in a Settlement Agreement

by Jack Thorne and Kimberley Smith | Jul 10, 2024 | Court Judgment, United Kingdom

In the case of Abdullah Nasser Bin Obaid and Ors v Khalid Abdullah Al-Hezaimi and Ors [2024] EWCA Civ 612,[1] the Court of Appeal handed down a judgment highlighting the importance of carefully drafting settlement agreements and, in particular, which claims are released.

Background

2017 Proceedings

In 2017, Mr Bin Obaid, a Saudi Arabian national and businessman, brought proceedings in the English High Court against Dr Al-Hezaimi (the 2017 Proceedings). His case was that he had orally agreed with Dr Al-Hezaimi to invest in the English property market using an offshore corporate vehicle of which Mr Bin Obaid would be the majority shareholder. Under the alleged oral agreement, Mr Bid Obaid would provide the funds and Dr Al-Hezaimi would manage the investments. Mr Bin Obaid listed 24 payments in his Particulars of Claim, which he (or an associated company) made to Dr Al-Hezaimi or a property developer.

On the basis of these allegations, Mr Bin Obaid and his companies started the 2017 Proceedings by bringing a without notice application against Dr Al-Hezaimi and his companies for both a proprietary injunction and a worldwide freezing order, which was duly granted by Barling J (the Barling J Order).

Dr Al-Hezaimi’s

Arbitration Agreements No Longer a Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Card for Insolvent Debtors: A Farewell to Salford Estates

by Campbell Herbert | Jul 2, 2024 | Arbitration, Court Judgment, Banking & Finance, United Kingdom

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has decisively redrawn the boundaries between arbitration agreements and insolvency proceedings in the case of Sian Participation Corp (In Liquidation) v Halimeda International Ltd.[1]

At its core, this case represents a clash between the long-established public policy of insolvency law, which aims to efficiently wind-up insolvent companies for the benefit of all creditors, and the now firmly entrenched policy that those who agree to arbitrate their disputes should be held to that bargain. For years, these two heavyweights have fought, neither quite landing a knockout blow. Now, the Privy Council has stepped in to declare a winner.

Prequel: The Rise and Fall of Salford Estates

In 2014’s Salford Estates (No 2) Ltd v Altomart Ltd,[2] the English Court of Appeal determined winding-up petitions generally should not be granted where the underlying debt was subject to an arbitration agreement, even where that debt wasn’t genuinely disputed. This handed debtors a powerful shield against liquidation.

While adopted in many common law jurisdictions, the Salford Estates approach was not followed in the British Virgin Islands, where Sian Participation v Halimeda International arose. Fast-forward to 2024, and the Privy Council has now carefully

UK General Election: Anti-PACCAR Bill Torpedoed

by Jack Thorne and Harry Denlegh-Maxwell | May 31, 2024 | Legislative Update, United Kingdom

In a previous blog post, we discussed the introduction to Parliament of the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill (the Bill), which was designed to introduce legislation that would reverse the outcome of the UK Supreme Court’s decision in R (on the application of PACCAR Inc and others) v Competition Appeal Tribunal and others.[1]

As we previously set out, the ruling in PACCAR was set to have significant ramifications for litigation funders, claimants and claimant law firms in the UK that rely on third-party funding, potentially threatening the financial viability of swathes of the litigation funding industry. In PACCAR, the Supreme Court held that litigation funding agreements that entitle funders to be paid a portion of any damages recovered (as opposed to a multiple of the investment made by the litigation funder) are “damages-based agreements”, as defined in the Courts and Legal Services Act, and are therefore unenforceable unless they comply with the relevant regulatory regime.

The Bill proposed amending s58AA of the Courts and Legal Services Act, to insert a provision that “an agreement is not a damages-based agreement if or to the extent that it is a litigation funding agreement”. A litigation funding agreement

Supreme Court Clears the Air on ‘Force Majeure’ Clauses

by Jack Thorne and Sadaat Cheema | May 28, 2024 | Court Judgment, Transportation & Logistics, United Kingdom

The UK’s Supreme Court has issued an important judgment clarifying the extent to which parties are required to use reasonable endeavours to avoid force majeure. Force majeure, or in layman’s terms ‘act of god’, is a specified, and generally unforeseen and disruptive, event which may mean that one or both parties to a contract are relieved from having to fulfil their obligations under it. In the present case, the underlying contract contained a force majeure clause, which included a provision requiring the party which was affected by the force majeure event to exercise reasonable endeavours to overcome it.

The relevant force majeure event took the form of US sanctions which effectively prevented payment by the charterer under an affreightment contract being made to a shipowner using US dollars. The charterer instead offered to make payments in euros and to cover any losses arising to the shipowner through the conversion of those payments into US dollars. However, in what seems a somewhat counterintuitive decision, the Supreme Court unanimously found against the charterer, on the basis that the requirement on the shipowner to exercise reasonable endeavours to overcome the force majeure event did not mean that it had to accept performance that

The Elusive ‘Anti-Anti-Arbitration Injunction’

by Sadaat Cheema | May 28, 2024 | Arbitration, Court Judgment, Oil & Gas, Transportation & Logistics, United Kingdom

The recent decision of the High Court in Euronav Shipping NV v Black Swan Petroleum DMCC [2024] EWHC 896 (Comm) illustrates when a party may be unable to enforce an arbitration agreement which is otherwise valid and enforceable. In the present case, Euronav succeeded in satisfying all of the elements of the test for an injunction which sought to restrain Black Swan Petroleum (BSP) from pursuing an anti-arbitration application before the Malaysian Courts. Nevertheless, in the exercising its discretion, the Court declined to award an injunction having regard to international comity and because it deemed that it would be vexatious and/or oppressive given the applicant’s earlier submission to Malaysian court jurisdiction. The case is a cautionary reminder of the need to pursue a carefully considered dispute resolution strategy.

Facts

The applicant, Euronav, a firm involved in ocean transportation and storage of oil, entered into a contract with a Malaysian registered company, Silk Straits SDN BHD (Silk Straits), by which it made available certain tanks on the Motor Tanker Oceania (the Vessell) for storage of oil. A first addendum to the agreement provided for English governing law and exclusive jurisdiction of the English High Court, and recorded Euronav’s consent to prospective assignment

Commercial Court Orders Disclosure in Wake of Fraud Summary Judgment

by Jack Thorne and Jonathan Robb | May 22, 2024 | Court Judgment, United Kingdom

In the case of Lowry Trading Limited and anor v Musicalize and ors [2024] EWHC 773 (Comm),[1] the Commercial Court demonstrated its willingness to use the various tools at its disposal to compel disclosure and/or the provision of information, particularly where there is a subtext of fraud.

Background

The Claimants operate investment businesses. They claim that Mr and Mrs Anderson (the Second and Third Defendants), acting through various limited companies (the other Defendants), made various false representations as purported concert promoters in order to obtain investment from them. In pursuing recovery of their investments, the Claimants allege claims in: deceit; unlawful means conspiracy; breach of contract; inducement of breach of contract; and breach of trust, as well as claims pursuant to certain guarantees.

On 21 October 2021, the Court granted freezing injunctions against the First, Fourth and Fifth Defendants preventing them from dealing with or disposing of assets outside of the ordinary and proper course of business (the Injunctions). The Injunctions further required the Defendants to notify the Claimants before dealing with or disposing of assets purportedly inside the ordinary and proper course of business, which notice requirements form the basis of the Claim ants’ present application.

On

BLOG EDITORS

STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

RECENT POSTS